Allowed

Madavaneni Raghunandan Rao v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jul 2025CRLP/4855/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An MP sought quashing of proceedings arising from a 2020 dharna at an electricity office during Covid-19, alleging violations of lockdown guidelines. The High Court held police could not register an FIR for the Section 51 Disaster Management Act offence due to the Section 60 complaint bar, and that ingredients of Sections 143, 341 and 188 IPC were lacking, quashing the case against him.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.56 of 2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Hyderabad quashed against petitioner/accused No.3 only; miscellaneous applications closed.

Madavaneni Raghunandan Rao Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE TATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERA AD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHT DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESEN

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JU TICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL P ETITION N 4855 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

MADAVANENI RAGHUNANDAN RAO ^S/o^{Bhagavantha Rao. aged 55} years, Member of Parliament. l\rledak Constituency. R/o. Boppapur- Vg of Dubbak Mandal, Siddipet District

¶9

..Petitioner / Accused No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

¶12

]n^e^{Sl9le. of l elangana.f hroughStatio} House Officer, PS SiddipeH Town P S., Siddipet District, rep by rtl pubtic osecutor, High Court of Judicature of Telangana At Hyderabad

¶13

...Respondent

¶14

2 Mr D Mahipal Reddy, Sub-lnspector of olice, Siddipet-t Town p.S., Siddipet

¶15

District

¶16

...De-facto Complainant

¶17

Petition under Section 52g of BNSS raying that in the circumstances stated in the Arlemorandum of Grounds of Cri inal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C No.56 of 2OZ1 , d 10/0212021 , U/Sec 143, 34.1 , 1 88 lPC, Sec. 512 DM Act 2005, on the frle of prl Judicial First Class Magrstrate at Siddipet in FIR No 242 of 2020, dt j5tO6t2O2 , Siddrpet lTown Police Station, Siddipet District, against the petitroner/A 3

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that rn the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of aI further proceedings incruding dispense with the appearance in C.C No.56 of 2021, dt 1O 02 2021 , UtSec 143, 341, 188 IpC, sec 512 DM Act 2005, on the file of prl Judicial First class l\Iagrstrate at Siddrpet in FIR No 242 of 2o2o, dt.15 06 2020, Siddipet-r rown porice Station, siddipet District, as against the petitioner/A-3, pending disposar of the above quash petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hea,ng the arguments of Sri Dr. A/.p Kashuyap, learned counsel representing [\il r R V. pavan Maitreya, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Arun Kumar Dodra. Additionar pubric prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

¶21

The Court made the following Order:-

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K LAKSHMAN

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No 4855 of 2025

¶24

ORAL ORDER:

¶25

Heard Dr.M.P.Kashuyap, learned counsel

¶26

representing Mr.R.V.Pavan Maitrcy , learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 and Sr Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecuto fbr respondent No. I State.

¶27

This Crirninal Petition is tlled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhi , 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against the p titioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.56 of 2021 on the file o the learned Principal

¶28

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sid lpet

¶29

Petitioner herein is accused o.3 in the afbresaid

¶30

C.C. The offences alleged against t c petitioner arc under

¶31

Sections 143,341 and 188 of IPC nd Section 5l of the

¶32

¶33

Disaster Managernent Act, 2005 (for short 'DM Act, 2005')

¶34

Orr the complaint dated 15.06.2020 of respondent No.2, Police, Siddiperl Town Police Station. Siddipet District. registered a case in Crirne No.242 ot'2020 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences

¶35

In thc cornplaint dated 15.06.2020. thc allegations lcveled against the petitioner are that on 15.06.2020 at about 1 1.00 a.rn. respondent No.2 along u,ith his staff i.e., LWs.2 and 3 constables are conducting patrolling, they ltave received inlbnnation through reliablc sources that solne pcrsons were gathered and condtrctccl Dharna at the Elcctricity Office, Mushtabad X load.^-l'hcrcfore, they ha'"'e reached the said spot and observcd that sorne persons are in front of the electricity office. f'he sairl persons havc been conducted Dharna in violation ol' thc guidelines issued by the Governrnent with regard to Covicl-l9 without rvearing rnasks and also violated the Modcl Codc of

¶36

¶37

Conduct. On enquiry, he came to ow about the details of the aforesaid^persons, includin the petitioner herein Respondent No.2 has requested the Station House Officer, Siddipet-I Town Police Station, iddipet to take action against the petitioner/accused No.3 nd others.

¶38

During the course of investig tion, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements f respondent No.2 as LW.1, Sarampally Kanakaiah, c nstable of Siddipetl Town Police Station as LW.2. That ari Bharath, constable of Siddipet Town Police Stati n as LW.3. On consideration of the said state ents recorded under Section 16l of the Code of Crirnin I Procedure, 1973, the Investigating^' Officer laid char sheet against the petitioner herein. The same was tak n on filc as C.C.No.66 of 2021 against the petitioner for th aforesaid offences.

¶39

Petitioner filed the present etition to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. c ntending that in view of the bar under Section 60 of DM ct, 2005, Police can't

¶40

¶41

register FIR against the petitioner for the ofl'ence under Section 5l of DM Act, 2005 by registering Crime No.242 ol' 2020. It is in violation of tlre procedure laicl down unclcr Section 60 of DM Act, 2005. Without considering the same, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance ol the afbrcsaid oflences against the petitioner-accused No.3 lrerein. With the said subrnissions, the petitloner sought to cluaslr thc proceedings in CC No.56 of 2021against lrirn

¶42

Whercas, learned Additional public prosecutor r,vould contend that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner along witir others violated Covid- l9 guidelines issued by the Govcrnrnent vidc G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 04.06.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 07.06.2020. There are also spccific allegations levclled against the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner are triable issues which this Court cannot consider in a petition under Section - 52g of the BNSS as thc sar.ne havc to be considered after a full-fledged trial

¶43

¶44

only by the trial Court. Thus, he ought to dismiss thc

¶45

present criminal petition

¶46

As discussed supra, the alleg tion levelled against the petitioner and other accused that they havc not fbllowed the covid-19 guidelin s issued by the Govcrnment vide G.O.Ms.No.75, d red 04.06.2020. It is relevant to note that the Governme t has alrcady issued G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 07.06.2020 r laxing the conditions irnposed in G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 0 .06.2025 and relaxed the said conditions and permitted t owners to open the shops, religious places, hotels, r staurants and other hospitality services and shopping ma ls (other than garning centers and cinema halls) etc. Wi hout considcring the same, the respondent No.2 has lodg d the said cornplaint dated 15.06.2020.

¶47

In the light of the said submis ions, it is relevant to extract Section 5l and 60 of DM Act 2005:

¶48

¶49

5 t . Ptr nishment for obstrttction,^ctc'- \/hocver. n'ithout rcasonable^causc-

¶50

(a) obstlucts arly officer or enrployee^{ol' the} ('cntral (iol e rnttretrt or thc Statc Covcl'ntlctlt,^or ir person autholised^{by the National Authority or} State Authority or^{District Authoritv inthe} rlischargc ol his lunctions^{under this Act: tlt'}

¶51

(b) r'e lirscs to con.rply with any^{directiongivcn by} ,rl on bchall- ol'the Ccntlal^{Governmerrtor the} State Governlrcnt or^{thc National Irccutivc} ('ommittee ol thc State Executive Conlnrittee or llrc District Authority^{undcr this Act,}

¶52

shall on convictiou^bepunishablc "vith rrupLisontleut ftlr a tertn^{whichmay cxtend to olle} )ear^{or rvith line, or with both, ancl il' such} obstruction or relusal to^{cornplywith dircctions} lcsults in loss ol'lives^{or imtninentdangcr thcreof,} shall orl conviction be^{punishablewith} irnplisonment lor a term^{which rnaycxtend to trvo} VCal-s_

¶53

"(r0.^(iognizancc of offences - No^Courtshall tahc cognizaltcc of^{atr offcnccutrder tltis Act} crcept on a conrplaint^{made by- (a)the National} r\uthority, thc State Authority,^{thc Central} (iovclnment, thc State Governmcnt. thc District Authority or any other authority or^otticer

¶54

¶55

authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Govemment, as the case may ;^{or (b)any person} who has given notice of not I ss than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of e alleged oflence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the Sta Authority, the Centlal Covernment, the Stat Government, the District Authority or any other uthority or offlcer authorised as aforesaid.

¶56

20 and the statements 11. In the complaint dated 15.06.2 of LWs.l to 3 recorded under Secti n 161 of Cr.P.C, they havc simply stated that the petitio er and others stopped the persons coming to electricity ffice. They have not mentioned the names or details of e said persons whom the petitioner and others alleg ly stopped. The Investigating Officer did not reco the statements of any inclependent witness including th persons whom the petitioner and others have stopped Without considering the sarne, the Investigating Offi er laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and ther accused for the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate has taken

¶57

¶58

¶59

cognizancc of the said offences. More, police cannot register an FII{ against the petitioner for the offences under Section 51 o1'thc DM Act in view of the bar under Section 60 of thc DA4 Act. In the light of the said discussions, the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.56 of 2021 for the off'cnce undcr Section 51 of the DM Act are herebv quashed.

¶60

...1

¶61

With regard to Section 143 of IPC, it is relevant to note that Section 143 of IPC deals with punishment for unlawful assernbly. Section 141 defincs the unlawful

¶62

assembly, and the same is cxtracted under

¶63

l-l l. Unlau ful lssenrbly.-

¶64

An assembly ol'flve or more persons is designated an^"unlarvluI asscrnbly", if the cornrnon object of thc persons composing that assembly is--

¶65

(First) -^'l-o overarve by criminal force, or show of criminal firrce, lthe Central or auy State (lovernment or Parliament or the Legislature of

¶66

¶67

any State, or any public servan in the exercise of the law{ul powcr of such public servant; or

¶68

(Second) -^-l'o resist the execu on of any law, or ol any legal process. or

¶69

(Third) - To commit any mi chief or criminal trespass, or other of'tence; or

¶70

(Fourth) - By rneans of crimina force, or show of criminal fbrce, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any propefty, r to deprive any person ol the enjoyment of a ght of way, or of the use ol- water or other rn orporeal right of rvhich he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enlorce any right or supposed ri ht; or

¶71

(Filih) - By means of criminal force, or show ol crirninal f urce, to compel any erson to do what he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do what he is legatly entitled to do.

¶72

Explanation - An assembly which was not unlarvful '"vhen it assembled, ay subsequently becorne an unlawluI assembly.

¶73

Section 341 of IPC deals wi the punishment for

¶74

wrongful restraint. Section 339 of IPC defines wrongful restraint and the sarne is extracted u er

¶75

¶76

\'roneful rcstraint.-

¶77

Whocver r.oluntarily obstructs any pel'son so as to l)reveut^{lhat pcrsont}om ploceeding inany} ditcction in u,hich that 1-.crsou has a right to proceed, is sairl wnrnglully to restrain tliat person

¶78

E,xcc tron l he obstruction ol a private rvay over land or $,atcr rvhich a pcrson in good faith belicvcs [riursell- to lravc a larvtirl right to obstruct, is not an ol-lcrrcc rvithin the rncaning of this scctron

¶79

Irr tlre complaint datccl 15.06.2020 and statetnents of LWs. I k) 3, ingredients of Section

¶80

341 of [PC are lacking against thc pctitioner.

¶81

Section 188 of IPC dcals rvith 'disobedience to order duly prornulgated by a 1;ublic servant' and the salne is extracted as uncler.

¶82

"188.^{Disobedienccto ordcr dul1, promulgated} br public scrvant. Whoevcr, knowing that, by an ordct' pronrulgatecl b1, a puttlic servant lawfully ertrltoweled to prontulgate such order, he is directed

¶83

¶84

to abstain from a certain act, or to ake cerlain order with certain property in his pos sion or under his management, disobeys such direct on, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to use obstruction, annoyancc or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with sim le imprisonment fbr a term which may extend to o e month or with fine which rnay extend to two h ndred rupees, or with both; and ilsuch disobedicn causes or trends to cause danger to human life, he lth or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot o affray, shall be punished with irlplisonment of ither description for a term which may extend to si months, or with llne which rnay extend to one th sand rupees, or with both.

¶85

Explanation. lt is not n essary that the ofTender shou ld intend to pro uce harm, or contemplate his d isobedience as I kely to produce harm. [t is sufficient that hc kn s of the order which he disobeys, and that is disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, rTn

¶86

Illustration An order is p mulgated by a public servant lawfully empowere to promulgate such order, directing that a reli lous processlon shall not pass down a ceftain stre t. A knowingly

¶87

¶88

<Jisobeys the order,^{aLrd thereby causcsdatrger of} riot. A has cornmitted^{the ofl-enccdellned in this} sectiot-t."

¶89

It is also apt to^{note tltat in N.T. llama Rao v. The} State of A.P., rep. bv^{Prrblic ['rosccutorr,rvhiledealing} with the offences undel Scctlons^{188 ancl 283 of [PC, the} learned Single Judge of crstwhilc^{High Court of Andhra} Praclesh held as under

¶90

"5) Evcn if the altegation that thc lletitioner conductcd public rneetings^{at three toacl junctions} contral'y to the^{perutission accordcd lirr c.onducting} of a public meeting onlv at^{oue sllccifie'd placeis} trr"re, such a direction undcl^{Section30 ol the Police} Act, I tt6l could liavc bectl^{givctl on[1' b1' the} Superintendent or the Assistarlt^{Supelintcndcnt of} Potice of the District but not by^{any of' their} subordinates. If such a Derntission^{is glantr:d under} Section 30 of thc Poli<;e Act,^{l8(r I ancl is violated,} Section 195 (1) (a) ol Codc of'Clinrinal^[)roccdure matidatcs that the coniplaint in this^{regardhas to be} madc by the pubtic servant concetncd ot'sot.nc^otlter pt:tson to wliot-it such a public scrv.ltit^is adnr in isl.ratively subordinate to cnablc^{any Courl to}

¶91

Crimiral I'ctitron No.532i o12009. dccided on I 7 09.2009

¶92

¶93

take cognizance of an of-fence und r Section 188 of Code ol Crirninal Procedurc. ln hc present case, the charge sheet was liled by the ub Inspector of Police, who could not have bccn he authority to grant pennission tbr the publi rnceting and therefbre, the con.rpla int/c lrarge sh t is in violation of the mandatory plovision ol Scc ion 195(l Xa) of Code of Criminal Proccdu re.

¶94

That apart, the offencc alleg d to have been committed under Section 2tt3 o1he Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and othc is obviously in consequence to the alleged olfen e uncler Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is n an independent of the same. Even otherwise, thc nduct of public meeting at three road^{junctions ()r} bstruction to the traffic could not have been consi ered as causing any danger or injury to any person In so lar as the obstruction in any public way is nccrned, which can also be covered by Section 2 3 of the Indian Penal Code. thr-'chargc sheet cites nly one witness to speak about the tralfic^janr ca sed by the road show. But, wher-r the conduct ol- t public meeting at least at onc place has bcen pe itted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by rvay ol obstructi g the traffic, the same cannot be considered to b rvith necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence ol an offence punishable under lndiarr Pe al Code. Under

¶95

¶96

the circumstances,^{none of the oltenccs allegctlcan} be saicl to havc^{any reasonablc basis ancl irl any} view, the conrplaint/charge^{shect bcing in violation} o1' Section i95^{(l)(a) ol' Code o1' ( rirninal} Proccdurc, has^{to fail.}

¶97

As the complaint^{has lailed cltrc to ils uu-} sustainability. the^{proceedingsir-r thcir crltit'r:tyhavc} to fail, though^{the lst accused alonc approachctl tltis} Court by way of^{this CriminalPctition."}

¶98

In Thota Chandra^{Sekhar v. The Statc o[ Andltra}

¶99

Pradesh, through^{S.H.O.,P.S. Eluru Rrtral, Wcst} Godavari District2,^rclYing 0n Vitrtolts judgmcnts including N.T. Rama^{Rao (supra) and thc guidclincs laid} dorvn b1, the Hon'ble^{SuprctneCoult in Statc <lf Har.vana}

¶100

v. Bhajan Lal3, more^{particularly, gLliclclinc No'(r, r'rltich} says that where there^{is an cxpress legal llar cngraliedin} any of the provisions^{of thc Cocleor thc conceuredAct} IS inst itutccl) to^the (under r.r,hich a criminal^proceeding institution and continuance^{of the proceedings and/or} where thcre is a specific^{provision in the Code or the}

¶101

Clirnrnal I'L-trtion No. 1 52'18 of 20 t(;, dccided c'n 16. l0.l() 1 6

¶102

' 119,121 SL'P1, I SC(' 335

¶103

¶104

conccrned Act, providing efficaciou rcrnedv to redress the grievance of the party, the leamed Single Judge of High Court of Judicature for the States ol elangana and Andhra Pradcsh at Hyderabad quashcd thc oceedings in the C.C. mentioned therein by exercising po er under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is further hcld that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical de t of obtaining prior permission under Section 155(2) f Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint liled by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section^I 95(¹ (a) of Cr.P.C.

¶105

In Bhajan Lal (supra), the pcx Court cautioned that power of quashing should be c crciscd very sparingly and circumspection and that too in t c ralest olt rarc cases. While examining a conrplaint, q ashing of rvhich is sought, Courl cannot ernbark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or othe isc ol the allegations made in the cornplaint or in FlR. In the said^judgment, the Apex C6urt laid down certain gui elincs/parameters for

¶106

¶107

¶108

exercise of^{powers under Section482 of Cr l''(l'['he sarne}

¶109

read as unclcr:

¶110

"( l) Where the allegations^{n.rade intlrc llrst} inlirr-n-ration repor1 or the^{cornplaint, evcn il'lltel' alc} takcn at their tacc^{value and acceptc(l irr their} entircty cio Itol^{prinra tacie constitttte any ol'lctrceor} rnakc out a case against^{the accusecl.}

¶111

(2) Wlrcre tlrc allcgations in^{thc lirstit t I tr ttt t:t I t trt t} report and othcr materials,^{if any, accotlrpartfirtg tlrc} FII( do not disclose a cognizablc^{oft'cncc,.irrstilying} an investigation^{.by police oificers utldc; Scctiou} 156( l) of thc Code cxcept^{ttuder an ordct' o1' a} Ivlagistrate within the^{purview ol SectionI 55(2) ol'} thc Code.

¶112

(3 7 Where thc uncontrovcrted allcgatiotls^rtratleit.r thc I''lR or cornplaint and^{the evicicnce collcctcdin} supl)ort of.the same do^{not disclose the cortltlti:siotr} ol- any offence and^{make out a cascagainst the} accused.

¶113

(4) Wliere ttre allegations in tlie FIII tlo^ntrt constitutc a cognizable^{oflencc bttt corlstittrtc ort[1'a} non-cognizable offence, no^{invcstigatiorris} pcrnritted by a police oflicer^{without atl ortlcr ol'a} Magistrate as con(errplated urldcr^{Section155(2) ol'} thc^('odc.

¶114

¶115

(5) Where the allegations ma e in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and in rently improbable on the basis of which no prude t person can ever reach a just conclusion that here is sulllcicnt ground for proceeding against th accusccl. (6) Where there is an express le al bar engra lied in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned^(under which a cri inal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and ontinuance of' the proceedings and/or whele th re ls a spccilic provision in the Code or Act co rcelned, providing efficacious redress fbr the ricvancc ol' thc aggrieved party.

¶116

(7) Where a crirninal procee ing is rnanil'cstly attended with mala fide a d/or rvhere the proceeding is maliciously inst itu ed with an u Itcrior motive for wreaking vengeance n the accused and with a view to spite him duc to p ivate and personal grudge."

¶117

The said principle was reite ed by the Apcx Court in a catena of decisions.

¶118

In the light of the above disc ssion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid deci ions, continuation of proceedings in C.C. No.56 of 2021 gainst the petitioner is

¶119

¶120

an abusc^{of process of la'ul' and' therclilrc' tltc pt'ocecdings} are liablc^{to be quashed against the petitirlncritt ex':rcise} of po'"r,crs^{undcr Scction - 528 of BNSS'}

¶121

¶122

Ar:corclingly,^{the pr'esentCrirninalPetitiorr is allowed} arrd tlrc^{proceecliugs in C'C' No'56 ol 2024 llcnclingr-in the} fi[c ol^{lspecia[ Judiciai N'lagistrate of Fiist Class tbr trial of} cascs lclating^{to MPs ancl MLAs at Hydcrabrd'are hcreby} cluashccl^{againstthe rretitioner} -^{accuscclNo'3 only'}

¶123

pcncling. shall l',liscellaneous^{applications,ifallv}

¶124

stand^cltlscd

¶125

Sd/. L.^VIJAYALAXMI TANT REGISTRAR AsSl /

,TRUE^COPY//

ECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Principal^{Judicial First Class Magistrate'Siddtpet}

¶131

2 The Station^{House Offtcer, Siddipet-lTown'P S ' Siddipet} 3 Two CCs^{to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶132